TexasCHLforum.com

No - because Texas

rtschl wrote:

RJGold wrote: with what Abraham and pawpaw said...

too.

There are businesses that post that I don't have an alternative to. Not notifying a business affects no one. By notifying a business, you have now put me and my family at risk if they decide to post a compliant sign. I wish I could live in the fairy tale world that only interacts with businesses that supports 2A/CHL. But that world does not exist. It will never exist.

This is ridiculous! A private landowner has a right to not want weapon toting customers on his property. you are not placed at risk because you have the CHOICE not to patronize the business.

No one in this thread or the other one is disputing a property owner's right to post as sign to keep guns out. Why do you not see that?

I didn't say anything about property owner rights. This issue is about those who go around telling businesses that their signage is non compliant.

Kiddkop wrote:

rtschl wrote:

RJGold wrote: with what Abraham and pawpaw said...

too.

There are businesses that post that I don't have an alternative to. Not notifying a business affects no one. By notifying a business, you have now put me and my family at risk if they decide to post a compliant sign. I wish I could live in the fairy tale world that only interacts with businesses that supports 2A/CHL. But that world does not exist. It will never exist.

This is ridiculous! A private landowner has a right to not want weapon toting customers on his property. you are not placed at risk because you have the CHOICE not to patronize the business.

The highlighted text makes me think of Yosemite Sam, yanking out his six-guns around and firing them off. Is that what you think about those who have CHLs, that they would do something like that? I say this because that is how the mass media likes to very unfairly portray one of the most law-abiding segments of the population.

You guys are arguing with someone who joined three days ago, has 16 total posts and every single one of them has been on this topic. He/She is now using terms like "weapon toting customers" when referring to 2a rights.

Do the math here.

I believe a business should have the right to ban anyone for any reason (although that right is slowly eroding in the courts these days).

However, I'm expected to obey the law, and I expect that they should also. It's not my job to educate them on how to ban my legally carried firearm.

If we were at a poker table, and my opponent laid down his Full House, but called it a Three of a Kind, why would I correct him if all I had was a Flush? Don't tell me it's the right thing to do...

And yes, I'm using a poker analogy. It works here also. Anytime I'm forced to leave my gun behind, I'm taking a gamble with my life, and the life of my family. Sure, it's a gamble anytime we do anything, but the Texas CHL law, as designed, allows me to stack the deck in my favor.

Taypo wrote:You guys are arguing with someone who joined three days ago, has 16 total posts and every single one of them has been on this topic. He/She is now using terms like "weapon toting customers" when referring to 2a rights.

Do the math here.

If you have read my 16 post you would know that I am an ex police officer that still works in CJ. That I have only recently applied for my LTC and I am new to this forum in the past couple weeks lurking in the waiting room reading post. However, I found it necessary for some reason to create a username and respond to a person telling everyone NOT to notify business owners.

I at 1st thought....nah, no need to say anything, but after reading some post and forming an opinion on something that I previously did not have an opinion I decided that the right thing to do is to discern the intent of business. This will allow them to

A) remove the sign
B) correct the sign
C) do nothing

Each of these serve a purpose for me based on my newly formed opinion. I can,


A) continue to carry and do business
B) not carry if I choose to do business
C) continue to carry and do business

I don't see a negative to notifying.

Furthermore, the only ones getting upset are the ones that believe my opinion is incorrect. I am definitely not upset. I have only had this opinion for 48 hours. Definitely not long enough to get upset with someone that disagrees with me.

Who said: "This is ridiculous! A private landowner has a right to not want weapon toting customers on his property. you are not placed at risk because you have the CHOICE not to patronize the business."

But now states: " Definitely not long enough to get upset with someone that disagrees with me."

The two above quotes sound remarkably contradictory.

No. I give it the same amount of thought the business owner apparently did, about two seconds. If they really cared they would have the correct sign posted.

Abraham wrote:Who said: "This is ridiculous! A private landowner has a right to not want weapon toting customers on his property. you are not placed at risk because you have the CHOICE not to patronize the business."

But now states: " Definitely not long enough to get upset with someone that disagrees with me."

The two above quotes sound remarkably contradictory.

I don't know, who?

I think it is ridiculous that somehow a LTCer somehow thinks it is more correct for them to excercise their right than it is for a private landowner to excercise his. I also think it is ridiculous for someone to tell others what they should or should not do. I also think it is ridiculous for someone to start a thread telling people NOT to notify of incorrect signs. Doesn't mean I am upset, apparently your interpretation of upset is different than mine.

I just wanted to read about how long it takes from documents filed to receiving plastic.

But, in a matter of 2 days on a topic I previously did not have an opinion I have seemed to upset others because I developed an opinion different than theirs.

Man this is getting better than face book!

rtschl wrote:

RJGold wrote: with what Abraham and pawpaw said...

too.

There are businesses that post that I don't have an alternative to. Not notifying a business affects no one. By notifying a business, you have now put me and my family at risk if they decide to post a compliant sign. I wish I could live in the fairy tale world that only interacts with businesses that supports 2A/CHL. But that world does not exist. It will never exist.

It's not my business to tell a business owner how to run their business.

Kiddkop wrote:

Abraham wrote:Who said: "This is ridiculous! A private landowner has a right to not want weapon toting customers on his property. you are not placed at risk because you have the CHOICE not to patronize the business."

But now states: " Definitely not long enough to get upset with someone that disagrees with me."

The two above quotes sound remarkably contradictory.

I don't know, who?

I think it is ridiculous that somehow a LTCer somehow thinks it is more correct for them to excercise their right than it is for a private landowner to excercise his. I also think it is ridiculous for someone to tell others what they should or should not do. I also think it is ridiculous for someone to start a thread telling people NOT to notify of incorrect signs. Doesn't mean I am upset, apparently your interpretation of upset is different than mine.

I just wanted to read about how long it takes from documents filed to receiving plastic.

But, in a matter of 2 days on a topic I previously did not have an opinion I have seemed to upset others because I developed an opinion different than theirs.

No one saying chl rights are more important than property rights. What is being said is that they would not inform the business on correcting the sign.